Appeal 6003853

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has submitted revised drawings with the appeal which adjust some of the landscaping to address [name], although not cited in itself as a reason for refusal upon the Council’s decision notice. I do not consider that these alterations materially or substantially alter the proposal that is before me, nor do I consider that these minor changes would prejudice any third party in this case. I have therefore taken the revised drawings into consideration in reaching my

The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The area is characterised by detached dwellings set within spacious plots. This creates a strong sense of uniformity to the rhythm of development within the area that gives the locality a cohesive distinctiveness. The existing dwelling at the site assimilates with the pattern of development in the area being set within a spacious site.

The proposal to erect two pairs of semi-detached dwellings with narrow plot widths and in close proximity both to one another and to the side boundaries of the site, would appear as a dense development. This would not conform with the spacious pattern of development within the area. Furthermore, the frontages would comprise large areas of hard surface for access and the parking of vehicles. This would compound the visual density of the development being uncharacteristic to the appearance of the area. As a pair of detached houses of symmetrical design this would also be at odds with the prevailing appearance of detached dwellings on this side of [site address] where each property has its own individual design. The proposal would represent an overdevelopment of the site and would be visually out of keeping and harmful within this street scene. This would be so despite the height of the development being comparable to the existing two-storey development in the locality and the living conditions of existing neighbouring occupiers not being harmed as a result of the proposed development.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policies SP1, SP2, SOP6, HOU3a and HOU10 of the Ashford Local Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These policies seek, amongst other matters, development to be of a layout, design and appearance that is appropriate to and is compatible with the character and density of the surrounding area. These policies also seek development to respond to local distinctiveness and not to result in harm to the character of the area including the surrounding grain and built pattern of development.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply of deliverable housing sites and, as such, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged.

The proposal would boost the supply of housing within the Borough that would make effective use of the site and could provide family homes in a sustainable location. The adverse impacts of the proposed development as a result of the harm to the character and appearance of the area attracts substantial weight. Even if the housing shortfall is substantial the adverse impact of the proposed development attracts substantial weight and therefore significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework when taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The party’s submissions discuss matters pertaining to biodiversity net gain, however, this does not form part of the Council’s refusal reason as set out within its decision notice. The appeal proposal is accompanied by both an updated biodiversity [name] calculation and [name] plan, which indicates the appellant’s commitment to enhancing biodiversity. However, as I am dismissing this appeal for other reasons it has not been necessary for me to explore this matter further.

Having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed.